Member of Parliament Helma Lodders (VVD) answers questions that were not discussed during the House of Representatives debate, but are relevant.
Lodders emphasizes that State Secretary Martijn van Dam must communicate the policy better. This can be done, for example, through the professional media. In addition, he must explain why the policy is essential.
You have described the implementation of the reduction scheme with the words 'too many cosmetic flaws'. A process of 'trial and error' is better formulated, right?
'I've also called it 'far below par'. It took effect under steam and boiling water. However, if you are now going to adjust it for the third time, you must first make sure that you have closed all the holes. I've had crying entrepreneurs on the phone. There are countless examples of companies that have been hit hard by the phosphate reduction scheme. Not only cattle traders and transporters, but also beef cattle companies. Some have slightly more buffer, others cannot afford the risk of a fine, but we as the House of Representatives have no say in the implementation of a ministerial regulation.'
Lawsuits that are filed do not mean much at the moment, as long as the appeal against the successful cattle farmers has not been heard. The Secretary of State said that literally. Do you agree with that?
'Strictly formally he is right, because both the State Secretary and the livestock farmers will appeal. I know from my own network that a number of consultancy firms have registered companies in the same category with RVO. There appear to be 100 so far. That's fine with me, relatively speaking. I would have thought this number would be higher. This number is a benchmark to keep in mind. If we look at this judge's ruling (about the successful livestock farmers), there is a gray area. That is why I am pleased that both parties will appeal, so that there will be clarity about this gray area.'
Manure fraud has not been discussed, but surely that does play a role in obtaining and maintaining the derogation?
'It plays no role for the phosphate reduction in 2017. I do not understand the alleged manure fraud described by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). If it really is the case, then I still have a bone to pick with the people who are working on it. However, the PBL must first be able to substantiate it firmly. That has not happened so far. If so, it must be dealt with severely. It certainly has to do with granting derogations in the future, when the sixth Nitrate Action Program is being drawn up.'
Why is nothing being done this year in the calculation of phosphate production with manure export to phosphate-poor countries?
'Great point from colleague Dijkgraaf of the SGP. He keeps repeating that. I also think he has a point. The VVD has also indicated this much earlier, but the current agreements about maintaining the derogation in 2017 can no longer be changed. For the commitment towards the sixth Nitrate Action Program from next year, this cabinet has indicated for the first time that it must play a role.'
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.
